Administrative delay cannot prejudice ultimately selected candidates’ entitlement to notional seniority and consequential benefits, without back wages.

The applicants had applied pursuant to Advertisement Notice No. 01 of 2006 dated 20 March 2006 for 165 Class-IV posts in District Udhampur and participated in the interview process conducted between November and December 2006. However, the respondents did not finalize the selection or publish the select list for several years.

The applicants and similarly situated candidates repeatedly approached the High Court, which directed the respondents to complete the selection process in 2010, 2012 and 2013.

Although the selection process was cancelled by Government Order No. 664-GAD of 2013, the High Court, by judgment dated 14 December 2015, directed the respondents to proceed with the original 2006 recruitment, apply the original eligibility conditions, and ignore inconsistent portions of the 2013 notification.

The respondents issued a public notice only in 2018, conducted the requisite process, and ultimately appointed the applicants in 2020 pursuant to the original 2006 recruitment.

The applicants therefore sought notional appointment from the date on which similarly situated candidates had been appointed, together with consequential seniority, pay fixation, increments, promotion and pensionary benefits.

Whether applicants who were ultimately appointed pursuant to the 2006 recruitment process could be granted a notional date of appointment corresponding to the date on which similarly situated candidates were appointed, despite their actual appointment in 2020?

Whether the applicants were entitled to consequential benefits, including notional seniority, pay fixation, increments, promotion and pensionary consideration, where the delay was attributable to the respondents and not to the applicants?

Whether the applicants were entitled to actual arrears of salary for the period during which they had not rendered service?

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

It applied the principle that where a candidate is ultimately appointed pursuant to a recruitment process but suffers delay because of an error or administrative inaction attributable to the State or recruiting authority, the Court may grant notional appointment and consequential seniority from the appropriate date, while moulding monetary relief according to the circumstances.

The Tribunal relied on Sanjay Dhar v. J&K Public Service Commission, (2000) 8 SCC 182, and C. Jayachandran v. State of Kerala, (2020) 5 SCC 230, for the power to grant notional appointment and consequential service benefits.

It further applied the principles that the State cannot take advantage of its own wrong, and that notional service benefits generally do not entail payment of salary for a period during which the employee did not actually work.

The final High Court judgment dated 14 December 2015 concerning the Udhampur recruitment was treated as binding and required implementation in accordance with the original 2006 advertisement.

The Tribunal found that the applicants had participated in the 2006 recruitment, completed the interview process, remained willing and available for appointment, and had not contributed to the delay.

Their litigation was aimed at compelling completion of the recruitment rather than obstructing it; consequently, the delay could not be attributed to them.

Since the applicants were eventually selected through the delayed culmination of the original 2006 recruitment—not through a fresh 2020 recruitment—the respondents’ administrative delay could not operate to their permanent disadvantage.

Applying the principles in Sanjay Dhar and C. Jayachandran, the Tribunal held that notional appointment, seniority and related service benefits could be granted.

However, because the applicants had not actually rendered service during the intervening period, full salary arrears were unjustified.

Pensionary consequences were directed to be reconsidered by taking the notional date into account under the applicable rules.

The respondents were directed to determine each applicant’s notional date of appointment with reference to the appointment date of similarly situated candidates selected against the corresponding vacancies pursuant to Advertisement Notice No. 01 of 2006, and to assign consequential notional seniority.

They were further directed to undertake notional pay fixation, grant admissible increments, and consider the applicants for promotion and other service benefits from the appropriate date, subject to eligibility and availability of vacancies.

The applicants were not granted actual salary arrears for the period during which they had not worked.

Their pensionary claims were to be reconsidered in light of the notional date of appointment and the applicable pension rules.

The exercise was required to be completed within three months of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment.